LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
The Miniature Guide
to
Critical Thinking
C oncepts
and
T ools
By Dr. Richard Paul
and
Dr. Linda Elder
The Foundation for Critical Thinking
www.criticalthinking.org
707-878-9100
cct@criticalthinking.org
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
Why A Critical Thinking Mini-Guide?
This miniature guide focuses on of the essence of critical thinking concepts and
tools distilled into pocket size. For faculty it provides a shared concept of critical
thinking. For students it is a critical thinking supplement to any textbook for any
course. Faculty can use it to design instruction, assignments, and tests in any subject.
Students can use it to improve their learning in any content area.
Its generic skills apply to all subjects. For example, critical thinkers are clear as to the
purpose at hand and the question at issue. They question information, conclusions,
and points of view. They strive to be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. They seek
to think beneath the surface, to be logical, and fair. They apply these skills to their
reading and writing as well as to their speaking and listening. They apply them in
history, science, math, philosophy, and the arts; in
professional and personal life.
When this guide is used as a supplement to the textbook in multiple courses,
students begin to perceive the usefulness of critical thinking in every domain of
learning. And if their instructors provide examples of the application of the subject
to daily life, students begin to see that education is a tool for improving the quality
of their lives.
If you are a student using this mini-guide, get in the habit of carrying it with
you to every class. Consult it frequently in analyzing and synthesizing what you are
learning. Aim for deep internalization of the principles you find in it—until using
them becomes second nature.
If successful, this guide will serve faculty, students, and the educational program
simultaneously.
Richard Paul
Center for Critical Thinking
Linda Elder
Foundation for Critical Thinking
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools
Contents
Why Critical Thinking? � ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4
The Elements of Thought� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5
A Checklist for Reasoning���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6
Questions Using the Elements of Thought������������������������������������������� 8
The Problem of Egocentric Thinking������������������������������������������������������� 9
Universal Intellectual Standards��������������������������������������������������������������10
Template for Analyzing the Logic of Articles and Textbooks��������13
Criteria for Evaluating Reasoning������������������������������������������������������������14
Essential Intellectual Traits � �����������������������������������������������������������������������15
Three Kinds of Questions � �������������������������������������������������������������������������18
A Template for Problem-Solving��������������������������������������������������������������19
Analyzing and Assessing Research � �������������������������������������������������������20
What Critical Thinkers Routinely Do� �����������������������������������������������������21
Stages of Critical Thinking Development� �������������������������������������������22
Fourth Edition © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
www.criticalthinking.org
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools
Why Critical Thinking?
The Problem:
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to
itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet
the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends
precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in
money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.
A Definition:
Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to
improving it.
The Result:
A well cultivated critical thinker:
• raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
• gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it
effectively;
• comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against
relevant criteria and standards;
• thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing
and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical
consequences; and
• communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex
problems.
Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored,
and self-corrective thinking. It requires rigorous standards of excellence
and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and
problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
www.criticalthinking.org
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools
The Elements of Thought
Point of View
frame of reference,
perspective,
orientation
Purpose
goal,
objective
Question at issue
Implications and
Consequences
problem, issue
Assumptions
Information
presupposition,
taking for granted
Concepts
data, facts,
observations,
experiences
theories,
Interpretation
definitions, axioms,
and inference
laws, principles,
conclusions,
models
solutions
Used With Sensitivity to Universal Intellectual Standards
Clarity Accuracy Depth Breadth Significance
Precision
Relevance
© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
www.criticalthinking.org
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
12
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools
Clarity
Could you elaborate further?
Could you give me an example?
Could you illustrate what you mean?
Accuracy
How could we check on that?
How could we find out if that is true?
How could we verify or test that?
Precision
Could you be more specific?
Could you give me more details?
Could you be more exact?
Relevance
How does that relate to the problem?
How does that bear on the question?
How does that help us with the issue?
Depth
What factors make this a difficult problem?
What are some of the complexities of this question?
What are some of the difficulties we need to deal with?
Breadth
Do we need to look at this from another perspective?
Do we need to consider another point of view?
Do we need to look at this in other ways?
Logic
Significance
Fairness
Does all this make sense together?
Does your first paragraph fit in with your last?
Does what you say follow from the evidence?
Is this the most important problem to consider?
Is this the central idea to focus on?
Which of these facts are most important?
Do I have any vested interest in this issue?
Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints
of others?
© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
www.criticalthinking.org
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
15
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools
Intellectual
Integrity
Intellectual
Autonomy
Intellectual
Empathy
Intellectual
Humility
Intellectual
Traits or Virtues
Confidence
in Reason
Intellectual
Perseverance
Intellectual
Courage
Fairmindedness
© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
www.criticalthinking.org
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
21
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools
Critical thinkers routinely apply the intellectual standards to the
elements of reasoning in order to develop intellectual traits.
T h e S ta n da r d s
Clarity
Accuracy
Relevance
Logicalness
Breadth
Precision
Significance
Completeness
Fairness
Depth
Must be
applied to
T h e E l e m e n ts
As we learn
to develop
Purposes
Questions
Points of view
Information
Inferences
Concepts
Implications
Assumptions
I n t e l l e c t ua l T r a its
Intellectual Humility
Intellectual Perseverance
Intellectual Autonomy Confidence in Reason
Intellectual Integrity
Intellectual Empathy
Intellectual Courage
Fairmindedness
© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
www.criticalthinking.org
Critical Reasoning
Module 4: Mastery of the Process of Thinking
Module Introduction
Readings
Required
Chapters 4 & 7 in Critical Thinking
Buckle Henning, P., & Chen, W. (2012). Systems thinking: Common ground or untapped
territory? (https://searchebscohostcom.csuglobal.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=bth&AN=83405324&site=ehostlive) Systems Research & Behavioral
Science, 29(5), 470483. doi:10.1002/sres.2155
Viator, M. (2012). Developing historical thinking through questions. (https://search
ebscohostcom.csuglobal.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=pbh&AN=77508957&site=ehostlive) Social Studies, 103(5), 198200.
doi:10.1080/00377996.2011.606438
For Your Success
Welcome to Week 4. This week we examine how to analyze intellectual critical thinking and to
recognize and avoid fallacies in our reasoning. In this module we study the relationship of ideas,
theories, assumptions, claims, and facts to how we critically think.
The art of critical thinking pertains to the process of reasoning where you come to a conclusion and
justify it with reasons.
The art of critical thinking also includes asking questions. How can you apply what you are learning
about the different components of critical thinking to your success as a college student? Is it enough
to understand subjects through critical thinking or can you become a creative critical thinker?
How School Kills Creativity
(Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language=en)
Description: Sir Ken Robinson (2006) makes an entertaining and profoundly moving case for
creating an education system that nurtures (rather than undermines) creativity.
An evaluation of the parts of critical thinking are discussed to highlight how your purpose will
influence the questions you ask. To guide you in your professional and personal life an evaluation of
the process of how you interpret, conceptualize, and understand is presented, as is a discussion of
the possible implications that follow from your reasoning. Note: Keep in mind the creative element
of critical thinking.
Reflection Questions: How you determine if your reasoning is valid:
What is your purpose, goal, or objective?
Have you identified the essential questions about the problem or issue?
How have you collected your information: data, facts, observations, research, or experiences?
How have you interpreted or evaluated the information to infer conclusions or solutions to your
problem?
Are you basing your thinking on theory, hypothesis, claims, assumptions, laws, principles, models
or definitions?
What facts, axioms or assumptions have you taken for granted?
What are the implications and consequences of your thinking when you put it into action?
What world view or perspective are you filtering your thought process through: religion, politics, or
a specific social issue you feel strongly about?
Filmed July 2011 at TEDGlobal 2011 Allan Jones: A map of the brain
A Map of the Brain
(Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_jones_a_map_of_the_brain )
Description: In this Ted Talk, Allan Jones asks, how can we begin to understand the way the
brain works? The same way we begin to understand a city: by making a map. In this visually
stunning talk, Allan Jones shows how his team is mapping which genes are turned on in each
tiny region, and how it all connects up.
This week you have a Portfolio Milestone Assignment. Review it early in the week to understand
what is required of you and to allot your time appropriately. The activity requires time and analysis,
so don’t wait until the end of the week to begin.
Submit your Portfolio Topic, which is worth 20 points to your final Portfolio Project score. Be sure
to review the complete Portfolio Project assignment description and the Portfolio Grading Rubric
found in the Module 8 folder.
Optional: Keep a Critical Thinking Journal – Take time to reflect on your readings, class
discussions, theories, models, definitions of critical thinking and jot down your thoughts, feelings,
ideas, and questions. This journal is for your use and you are encouraged to keep writing in it after
the course ends. It will document how you think today and your growth to become an advanced
critical thinker.
HUM101 Module 4
(Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyDgqfGF0kI)
Learning Outcomes
1. Analyze elements of strategic thinking, logic and reasoning, and deductive and inductive arguments.
2. Apply methods to separate out bias from content: concepts, logic, and reasoning.
1. Recognize How the Brain Functions
Neuroscientist Daniel Wolpert starts from a surprising premise: the brain evolved, not to think or
feel, but to control movement. Watch this entertaining, datarich talk he gives us with a glimpse into
how the brain creates the grace and agility of human motion.
Filmed July 2011 at TEDGlobal 2011 Daniel Wolpert: The real reason for brains
(Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_wolpert_the_real_reason_for_brains?language=en )
The Development of Thinking
Advancement of intuition, insights, reasoning, and critical thinking.
Intellectual skill development takes practice, as in learning how to play a musical instrument.
Choice of selfcentered or fairminded thinking.
How the brain produces creativity
Watch the Ted Talk video by Charles Limb to discover what he and his team found to have deep
implications about our understanding of creativity.
Filmed November 2010 at TEDxMidAtlantic Charles Limb: Your brain on improv
(Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/charles_limb_your_brain_on_improv?language=en)
Description: Musician and researcher Charles Limb wondered how the brain works during
musical improvisation — so he put jazz musicians and rappers in an MRI to find out. What he
and his team found has deep implications for our understanding of creativity of all kinds.
Reflect on the possibilities of the brain to think artistically, musically, literature, and not just as a
tool for decision making, problem solving, or critical thinking.
Watch this video with Simon Sinek and discover how great leaders inspire action.
Simon Sinek, TEDx Puget Sound Speaker, 2009. Start with why how great leaders
inspire action.
(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA&index=1&list=PL150F0D1C78036B46)
Description: Simon Sinek discusses how great leaders inspire action – start with why in this
TEDx video.
2. Evaluating Fallacies in Reasoning
We now progress in our study of critical thinking to examine fallacies in reason, which influence
beliefs, behavior, and attitudes in a misleading manner. We study fallacies in order to learn how
critical thinkingbased arguments may "go wrong" that is, how the basis for a claim fails to defend
a claim. Appeals to emotion are ubiquitous in arguments and are often hard to disconnect from the
argument itself (and from the arguer, for that matter). However, the purpose of identifying fallacies
is not to destroy someone’s argument, but to help all parties sort out strong critical thinking from
weak critical thinking and thus improve our understanding of an issue.
Essentially, fallacies are mistakes of reasoning rather than mistakes based on evidence. We know
that good, sound arguments provide justification for accepting a claim. Fallacies are likely to have
some connection to a legitimate claim that they are trying to support; however, they do not support
the claim.
Categories of Fallacies
Overall, the study of fallacies is an application of the principles of critical thinking. Being familiar
with typical fallacies helps us to avoid making them in our own critical thinking and reasoning as
well as helping us to explain other people’s reasoning.
The Long Reach of Reason (TED 2012)
(Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_and_rebecca_newberger_goldstein_the_long_reach_of_reason?language=en)
Description:An animated Socratic dialog by Steven Pinker and Rebecca Newberger Goldstein.
In a time when irrationality seems to rule both politics and culture, has reasoned thinking finally
lost its power? Watch as psychologist Steven Pinker is gradually, brilliantly persuaded by
philosopher Rebecca Newberger Goldstein that reason is actually the key driver of human moral
progress, even if its effect sometimes takes generations to unfold. The dialog was recorded live at
TED, and animated, in incredible, often hilarious, detail by Cognitive.
Four broad categories of fallacies
Click on the category of fallacy to learn more about each one.
Fallacies of Inconsistency
Fallacies of Inappropriate Presumption
Fallacies of Relevance
Fallacies of Insufficiency
(Source: http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn
152/t0mbston3/seakari.jpg )
Something inconsistent or selfdefeating has been proposed or accepted.
Example: Believing that pigs can fly
There is a distinction between arguments that aim to motivate us to action and those that aim to
convince us to believe something. Appeals to emotion are rarely appropriate when others try to
influence our beliefs, but are often reasonable when they motivate us to actfor example, think
about a natural disaster and motivational appeals for volunteers. Irrelevant information is typically
about a natural disaster and motivational appeals for volunteers. Irrelevant information is typically
introduced as the "truth" of the claim in order to engender an emotional response that leads one to
assume mistakenly that the argument is valid.
To identify “pseudo” reasoning:
1. Identify the motivation to which the argument is appealing.
2. Ask whether the reasoning pertains to the question at hand.
Within the broader categories there are many (far too many to list here) specific fallacies. The
following is a list of common types of fallacies using emotional tactics:
Guilt Fallacy
Pity Fallacy
Scare Tactics Fallacy
Envy Fallacy
Rationalization Fallacy
Vanity or ApplePolishing Fallacy
Two Wrongs Make a Right Fallacy
Desire for Social Approval or Group Think Fallacy
Wouldbe Argument Fallacy
Scapegoating Fallacy
Popularity, Tradition or Common Practice Fallacy
Click here for more information about Fallacies.
(http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/fallacies/)
3. Evaluate Ideas, Concepts, and Data
We learned that there are several fallacies designed to appeal to our emotions. The fallacies we focus
on now are those that are constructed in the manner of a sound argument, but in which some
element of the argument is distorted and misleading. These fallacious arguments resemble good
reasoning, but when we look at their conclusions, we see they are examples of poor reasoning. It is
therefore essential that we examine additional fallacies, which distort ideas, concepts, and data.
We’ll begin with the most common type of fallacy (ad hominem) and look at its subcategories before
moving to the next type of fallacy, the ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) and its subcategories.
Ad Hominem Fallacies (Latin meaning "to the person")
The most common example of poor reasoning is the ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem in Latin
means "to the person." This fallacy often attempts to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a
negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting a claim. This fallacy takes on many forms
and is designed to skew the claim using a contradictory claim.
Ad Hominem
The following list provides the common ad hominem arguments. Click on the tabs to reveal the
definition.
Personal attack ad hominem
In this argument the tactic is to malign a person in order to dismiss that person's beliefs. An
individual’s personal failings have nothing to with deciding or proving that the individual is
making a false claim.
Example: “What Senator Barney Frank says about air pollution is a joke! That clown will say
anything to get attention!”
Inconsistency ad hominem
In this argument the tactic is to take a selfdefeating approach or propose or accept something
inconsistent with the claim. This may include a more personal attack or a contradiction of
claims.
Example: “You say that eggs are loaded with cholesterol, but I notice you eat them every
morning!”
morning!”
Circumstantial ad hominem
In this argument the tactic is to reduce the argument to an abusive attack on someone's beliefs
or the group to which they may belong.
Example: “Your physician says he doesn't believe in homeopathic cures, but that is what they
drill into students in medical school!”
Poisoning the well (circumstantial ad hominem)
In this argument the tactic is to reduce an argument by attacking one's personal character.
Example: “Ron Paul is providing us with his tax reform plan today. Well, it's just going to be
more rhetoric. He will say anything to get a vote!”
Genetic fallacy (circumstantial ad hominem)
In this argument the tactic is to reject a claim purely on the grounds of its source.
Example: “Labradoodles are not a legitimate breed of dog; that is why they are not recognized
by Westminster Kennel Club!”
Ad Ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)
As with the nature of the ad hominem fallacies, ad ignoratiam fallacies are constructed like
arguments but use poor reasoning skills. Let’s look now at some of these types of fallacies.
The following list provides common ad ignorantiam fallacies. Click on the tabs to reveal the
definition.
Personal attack ad hominem
The basis of the truth of a claim is established only on lack of evidence against it. A simple
The basis of the truth of a claim is established only on lack of evidence against it. A simple
obvious example of such a fallacy is to argue that unicorns exist because there is no evidence
against such a claim. At first sight it seems that many theories that we describe as scientific
involve such a fallacy.
Ad populum (appeal to popularity)
The basis of the truth of a claim is established on its popularity and familiarity. This is the fallacy
committed by many advertisements. You have seen ads, for example, that suggest you buy a
certain product because it is selling well or because the brand is the city's "favorite."
Example: “This is London’s favorite night cream, and it will make you look years younger.”
Affirming the consequent
This means implying that X is true solely because Y is true, and it is also true that if X is true, Y
is true. This type of reasoning ignores the possibility that there are other conditions apart from
X that might lead to Y.
Example: If there is a traffic jam, a student may be late for class. But if we argue from the
position that the student is late because of that traffic jam, we are guilty of this fallacy the
student may be late due to other reasons, such as getting out of bed too late. However, if we have
evidence showing that the traffic jam is the only or most likely condition that led to the student
being late, then it would be true (not a fallacy).
Begging the question (petito principia)
The argument for a claim is already assumed in the premise.
Example: "God exists because this is what the Bible says, and the Bible is reliable because it is
the word of God."
Loaded question or complex problem
This is a question presented in such a way that a person, no matter what answer he or she gives
to the question, will inevitably commit himself/herself to some other claim, which should not be
presupposed in the context in question. The common tactic is to ask a yesno question that tricks
people to agree to something they never intended to say.
Example: "Are you still as much of a perfectionist as you used to be?" In this case, no matter
whether you answer "yes" or "no," you are bound to admit that you were a perfectionist in the
past. The same question would not count as a fallacy if the question about one's perfectionism
was indeed accepted in the conversational context. For example: “To get this job done in a high
quality manner it requires attention to all the details. Are you still as much of a perfectionist as
you used to be?”
Composition (opposite of division)
The whole is assumed to have the same properties as its parts.
Example: Anne might be humorous and funloving and, thus, be an excellent person to invite
to the party. The same might be true of Ben, Chris and David when considered individually. But
it does not follow that it will be a good idea to invite all of them to the party. Perhaps they have
reason to avoid each other, and having all four in the same room could ruin the party.
Denying the antecedent
Inferring that Q is false just because if P is true then Q is also truebut P is false. This fallacy is
similar to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Again the problem is that some alternative
explanation or cause might be overlooked. Although P is false, some other condition might be
sufficient to make Q true.
Example: If there is a traffic jam, a colleague may be late for work. But it is not logical to argue
that if there is no traffic jam, the colleague will not be late. Again, his alarm clock may have
stopped working.
False dilemma
This argument assumes that only two alternatives exist in a given situation. Thus, anyone who
does not agree with the first alternative has to accept the second.
Example: “Either we balance our checking account or we will starve.” Obviously, the
conclusion is too extreme because you may have plenty of money in your checking account.
Whether it is balanced or not does not lead logically to starvation.
Gambler’s fallacy
An assumption is made that an independent statistic is dependent.
Example: The mind untrained in argument and reasoning might tend to think, for example,
that if a fair coin is tossed five times and each time comes up heads, then the next toss will more
likely come up as a tail. This is not true, however. If the coin is fair, the result for each toss is
completely independent of the others. Notice the fallacy hinges on the fact that the final result is
not known. Had the final result been known already, the statistic would have been dependent.
Non sequitur
A conclusion is drawn that does not follow from the premise. This is not a specific fallacy but a
very general term for a bad argument. Many of the examples in this exercise can be said to be
non sequitur.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, or false cause (literally, “after this, there because of this”)
This argument is based on the false idea that correlation always implies causation. You find that
a Dilbert cartoon (http://www.dilbert.com/) provides a perfect example of post hoc, ergo
propter hoc.
Slippery Slope
This argument uses the tactic of predicting that if one thing happens, or is permitted to happen,
another thing (always undesirable) will be the result. This implies when arguing that if an
opponent were to accept some claim M(1), then he or she has to accept some other closely
related claim M(2), which in turn commits the opponent to a still further claim M(3), eventually
leading to the conclusion that the opponent is committed to something absurd or obviously
unacceptable.
This style of argumentation constitutes a fallacy only when it is inappropriate to think if one
were to accept the initial claim, one must accept all the other claims.
Example: “The state government should not prohibit drugs. Otherwise the government should
also ban alcohol or cigarettes. And then fatty food and junk food would have to be regulated, too.
The next thing you know, the state government would force us to brush our teeth and do
exercises every day.”
Straw man
The tactic in this argument is to argue against a distorted or simplified version of what someone
has said, and treating the argument you give as if it is true. It often is attacking an opponent by
attributing to him or her an implausible position that is easily defeated when this is not actually
the opponent's position. In many ways, it is used to change the topic, almost like a smokescreen
fallacy.
Example: “The U.S. should send more troops to Iraq.” An individual might reply to this, “That
is not warranted because Iraq does not supply oil to the U.S.” or say it is not warranted because
Iraq will never become democratic. In either case, the fact remains that there is a war in Iraq
that the U.S. is involved in, and whether Iran supplies oil or becomes democratic are distorting
and simplifying (straw man fallacy) the claim.
Tautology (unconditional truths that are always valid) or circular reasoning or begging the question.
These are a series of selfreinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the
These are a series of selfreinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the
statements depend on the assumption that they are already correct. These types of arguments
use a tactic of starting with the conclusion to try to get a person to accept the premises that is
most desirable. However, it defeats the purpose of an argument.
Example: “It's impossible to believe that space goes on infinitely, because that's inconceivable.”
Word Bank:
two wrongs make a right
popularity
fallacious reasoning
smokescreen
argument from outrage
nationalism
apple polishing
tradition
scare tactics
argument by force
guilt trip
peer pressure
group think
appeal to pity
scapegoating
Instructions: For each question, select the best answer from the following word bank. “Flip”
the card to see if you are correct
Check Your Understanding
Click Here to Begin
References
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2012). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and
your life (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
your life (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment